Colorado SC just disqualified Trump from the ballot using the Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 of the Constitution

[Muse]

SCOTUS rejected the request to hear the immunity request.

Bad news. It means Trump lawyers' longstanding strategy to delay delay delay, is working here.

Here's the story at The New York Times. This link will work for 2 weeks to get beyond the paywall, i.e. until Jan. 5, 2024.

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Case on Trump’s Immunity Defense for Now (Published 2023)

The case will instead first be heard by a federal appeals court, which has put it on a fast track, scheduling arguments for Jan. 9.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Charmonium]

SCOTUS rejected the request to hear the immunity request.

Yup and thanx for pointing that out. But that was a petition for certiorari before judgement. It's a ridiculous argument so there's little doubt that the DC circuit won't rule against Trump.

But the Supreme Court has a duty to prevent/decide conflicts between states. So the CO decision would go straight to them and they would have to decide it - in a timely fashion. That's not to say that they will though. With idiots like Clarence the Clown, all bets are off.

 

[VRAMdemon]

The ruling is long and posted here. On page 33: As then - Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is “a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” Let’s see if Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch (same guy who is all about State’s rights), agrees with himself as Judge Gorsuch. In other words, that Colorado should interpret the laws of Colorado and not the Supremes.

I'm hoping the SCOTUS doesn’t want an emperor Trump. The Supremes would lose all power and just be Donald’s puppets. Thomas would lose leverage to be bribed any longer, and Trump could throw him in the clink if Clarence doesn’t toe the line. He reportedly already has a list of spineless bootlickers and white nationalist thugs to appoint to every high office possible as soon as possible if he wins so that he isn’t held back the way he was before. Although ... Trump tried the dictator shit the first time around too and was hit hard by the wall of reality that he wasn’t a king and couldn’t order anyone to do anything he wanted to. The idea of Trump being omnipotent and making everyone pay at his whim is a fantasy being put forth by Trump and his MAGA cult, not something that can actually happen. Hopefully the high court realizes they can’t make decisions about legal matters based on how somebody’s fucking fan club is going to react to those decisions.

The challenges to Trump’s ballot eligibility so far have all been adjudicated in state courts. Once a litigant loses in the highest court of a state, he or she may file a petition for a “writ of certiorari” asking the Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court, however, does not have to grant review. But, most likely they will. I’d be a bit surprised if SCOTUS doesn't get involved.

If this gets to the Supremes - My worthless opinion - I’m assuming that Roberts will be trying to get a unanimous decision. Some of the conservative justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch) don’t care about that and will vote their partisanship over any judicial principles. Gourish will contradict his previous ruling for partisanship. Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett MIGHT be persuadable on the merits; I could see them going either way depending if the plain reading takes priority for them or not. But I doubt it. If they all vote to overturn, the other three appointees would tend to vote to overturn, but I wouldn’t be surprised if one of them dissented (Kagen maybe?)

 

[Charmonium]

Since normal cert (rather than cert before judgement) only needs 4 votes rather than 5, SCOTUS will get either the CO case or some other one Trump is forced to appeal.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Revealing once again what a clown, grifter and bootlicker vying for Trumps VP he is, Vivek Ramaswamy is threatening to drop out of the CO primary unless Loser Donald is on the ballot, because he’s apparently forgotten that he’s trying to WIN this race.

GOP candidate vows to withdraw from Colorado primary unless Trump is reinstated on ballot

Former President Donald Trump was disqualified from the Colorado Republican primary ballot on Tuesday after the state Supreme Court ruled against him, almost certainly setting up a fight at the U.S. Supreme Court.And one of his rivals is vowing to boycott the Colorado primary if this ruling...

www.rawstory.com

I’m having flashbacks to anti-maskers threatening to boycott places they were banned from.

 

[fskimospy]

Revealing once again what a clown, grifter and bootlicker vying for Trumps VP he is, Vivek Ramaswamy is threatening to drop out of the CO primary unless Loser Donald is on the ballot, because he’s apparently forgotten that he’s trying to WIN this race.

GOP candidate vows to withdraw from Colorado primary unless Trump is reinstated on ballot

Former President Donald Trump was disqualified from the Colorado Republican primary ballot on Tuesday after the state Supreme Court ruled against him, almost certainly setting up a fight at the U.S. Supreme Court.And one of his rivals is vowing to boycott the Colorado primary if this ruling...

www.rawstory.com

I’m having flashbacks to anti-maskers threatening to boycott places they were banned from.

He’s…not trying to win. He’s trying to get attention.

 

[Charmonium]

Gratuitous insult - Vivek Slamajama

 

[Fenixgoon]

Revealing once again what a clown, grifter and bootlicker vying for Trumps VP he is, Vivek Ramaswamy is threatening to drop out of the CO primary unless Loser Donald is on the ballot, because he’s apparently forgotten that he’s trying to WIN this race.

GOP candidate vows to withdraw from Colorado primary unless Trump is reinstated on ballot

Former President Donald Trump was disqualified from the Colorado Republican primary ballot on Tuesday after the state Supreme Court ruled against him, almost certainly setting up a fight at the U.S. Supreme Court.And one of his rivals is vowing to boycott the Colorado primary if this ruling...

www.rawstory.com

I’m having flashbacks to anti-maskers threatening to boycott places they were banned from.

Ohnoanyway.gif

 

[JTsyo]

They won't have to switch to a caucus because this ruling won't affect primaries. They are run entirely by the political parties. Conceptually Trump can still be the GOP nominee even if not allowed on the election ballot.

It does. The party has the Colorado Department of State run their primary.

Trump barred from Colorado primary ballot for role in US Capitol attack​

The ruling applies only to Colorado's March 5 Republican primary but it could affect Trump's status in the state for the Nov. 5 general election. Nonpartisan U.S. election forecasters view Colorado as safely Democratic, meaning that President Joe Biden will likely carry the state regardless of Trump's fate there.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think differences in state election laws matter much here. What's at issue with SCOTUS right now is interpreting the US Constitution. If they should uphold the Colorado SC ruling here, then actions in other states would have to be brought. The only question is whether those actions will be essentially a formality where they ask their courts to take judicial notice of the factual findings in the CO trial court based on res judicata, or whether they have to have a new trial in each one, present essentially the same evidence, and hope for the same factual findings.

I agree, there shouldn't have to be a jury trial in a criminal case. There was a court trial already with evidence presented and Trump having full opportunity to challenge it.

I would take your opinion over mine because you know the law much better than I ever will and so far I have not been able to find something I can't quite remember that I heard about Colorado having some words in its laws that make it harder for Trump to defend his position in that state. I did fine some other info that may be relevant:

How Colorado’s election laws made the state ripe for challenging Donald Trump’s candidacy

Colorado’s statutes allow voters to bring a lawsuit challenging a presidential primary candidate’s qualifications to be on the ballot and they require courts to make a speedy ruling on the claim

coloradosun.com

I assume perhaps incorrectly that the US Supreme court will have to rule if the Colorado SC is constitutionally interpreting its own law which means to me that the particular way that law is written there will be relevant.

 

[Moonbeam]

He’s…not trying to win. He’s trying to get attention.

I thought he was inventing a new chorus for "I'm going to eat some worms".

I do love the fact that he chose to make a stand where he has tremendous leverage. If he pulls his name from the ballot I and millions of others may end it all.

 

[PlanetJosh]

If Trump is jailed in any of these state cases couldn't it lead to a civil war? Millions of Trump supporters battling police. Maybe some police would turn on each other in the fray. Trump supporters including some police would run out of ammo.

So the gun & ammo shops would be fought over resulting in those who run out of ammo having to set fires to fight. Those of you familiar with the gun & ammo businesses can explain better how fighting over them would happen.

Firefighters would probably refuse to work when under attack. And Army and other military wouldn't have enough personnel to take over the firefighting. Vast areas of cities would be engulfed in flames.

No nukes needed here although international war could happen if some countries take advantage of America's plight and make military moves near or in the US. Which could escalate the types of weapons used.

 

[woolfe9998]

I would take your opinion over mine because you know the law much better than I ever will and so far I have not been able to find something I can't quite remember that I heard about Colorado having some words in its laws that make it harder for Trump to defend his position in that state. I did fine some other info that may be relevant:

How Colorado’s election laws made the state ripe for challenging Donald Trump’s candidacy

Colorado’s statutes allow voters to bring a lawsuit challenging a presidential primary candidate’s qualifications to be on the ballot and they require courts to make a speedy ruling on the claim

coloradosun.com

I assume perhaps incorrectly that the US Supreme court will have to rule if the Colorado SC is constitutionally interpreting its own law which means to me that the particular way that law is written there will be relevant.

I just read an article that says if SCOTUS rules for plaintiff "he'll be disqualified in some states and not others" so you're probably correct. Though it's all academic unless or until that happens.

 

[Greenman]

As I said, Thomas can't justly vote on the matter which leaves 8,0 as the only possible outcome where justice prevails. Naturally, that is the actual truth and not just my opinion because there is an absolute truth and I can't see anything else. Justice is blind, you see. And even if you don't see which you shouldn't. You know I'm right. Trump is a very sick man. Even the Devil will turn on Trump because he doesn't like rivals.

PS: If you think the world is sane, seek madness as quick as you can. The water is fine. Love you.

I doubt Thomas will recuse himself. And I doubt they will allow action to be taken against Trump based on the presumption of guilt. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it playing out.

 

[fskimospy]

I doubt Thomas will recuse himself. And I doubt they will allow action to be taken against Trump based on the presumption of guilt. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it playing out.

So should Robert E. Lee been able to be president in 1868?

This should be a simple question to answer.

 

[PlanetJosh]

Can the conservative SCOTUS just say the 14th amendment implies a trial for the alleged offenses? That reasoning may get shredded here in this thread but it seems like the Court could get away with it from what we've been reading.in the news.

 

[Charmonium]

That's going to be a problem since it implies that Civil War Confederates shouldn't have been excluded from running for president without a court decision of sedition. That would have been unworkable at best. So the decision to make the clause self-executing was, without doubt, deliberate.

edit - it's not like there's any doubt about what Trump tried, with almost monotonous regularity, to do. I'm sure at some point we'll get to hear his most recent taped confession from Detroit soon.

 

[Zorba]

I doubt Thomas will recuse himself. And I doubt they will allow action to be taken against Trump based on the presumption of guilt. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it playing out.

There was a trial, with evidence, and a finding by a judge. How is that a "presumption" of guilt. Maybe you should stop listening to whatever right wing talking head that's lying to you

 

[ivwshane]

Can the conservative SCOTUS just say the 14th amendment implies a trial for the alleged offenses? That reasoning may get shredded here in this thread but it seems like the Court could get away with it from what we've been reading.in the news.

Could they do that? Sure, they can do whatever they want but it would indicate just how partisan they are and how their ideological beliefs are also bs. The only people who would come to the conclusion you came up with are people who are ignorant of history and who have poor reading comprehension.

 

[iRONic]

Can the conservative SCOTUS just say the 14th amendment implies a trial for the alleged offenses? That reasoning may get shredded here in this thread but it seems like the Court could get away with it from what we've been reading.in the news.

If Trump is jailed in any of these state cases couldn't it lead to a civil war? Millions of Trump supporters battling police. Maybe some police would turn on each other in the fray. Trump supporters including some police would run out of ammo.

So the gun & ammo shops would be fought over resulting in those who run out of ammo having to set fires to fight. Those of you familiar with the gun & ammo businesses can explain better how fighting over them would happen.

Firefighters would probably refuse to work when under attack. And Army and other military wouldn't have enough personnel to take over the firefighting. Vast areas of cities would be engulfed in flames.

No nukes needed here although international war could happen if some countries take advantage of America's plight and make military moves near or in the US. Which could escalate the types of weapons used.

Shitlol

Mushrooms?! Peyote, maybe?!

 

[Charmonium]

I'd be more worried about the Brownies or Scouts leading a rebellion - as long as they're home by 10

 

[iRONic]

Fewer smokers…

 

[Moonbeam]

I doubt Thomas will recuse himself. And I doubt they will allow action to be taken against Trump based on the presumption of guilt. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it playing out.

I don’t think it’s a presumption go guilt. No crime has been charged. It is merely a fact that he is an insurrectioist and therefore constitutionally not qualified to run. What you are implying is that he would have to convicted of being under 35 years of age in order to be disqualified based on his age.

That is not right. He just needs to be 35, not an insurrectionist, and a natural born citizen, etc. Any state with a process by which those qualifications by state law must be met and legal challenges be brought a candidate that does not would require an adjudication of r the matter seems to me. In Colorado, the state SC said Trump is not qualified because he is an insurrectionist, not that he was found guilty of it.

And just to sever a thread with a sword, would you take the stand that you do if a young Trump was being kept off the ballot because he was not yet 35?

This should show you that there is more than one kind of fairness. It is not fair to presume guilt or apply punishment where guilt has not been established. This, I believe, is for you more than most people, a virtue of primary weight, but so much so that you easily presume that others, out of a lack of appreciation and even a lack of moral spine, are too ready to convict and prosecute others without evidence based on inner perniciousness.

Personally I believe that is way way too often true. But if a willingness to withhold judgement is a real virtue like I believe it is, then surely good people everywhere will aspire to it. And if they are also satisfied they have satisfied their commitment to fairly judge others, then perhaps at that point other factors may play into their judgement.

Personally I believe that the real crime as far as Trump is concerned, is that he was ever able to run for President in the first place. He is mentally I’ll in a dangerous way. Let’s hope the SC puts him out of contention and out of our hair.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I hope not as to me that would be the most alarming possible outcome - that the president is not barred from engaging in insurrection against the United States.

Really, all of the outcomes are various levels of silly/dangerous. 1) for the reason above 2) because that means Jefferson Davis or Robert E Lee have been elected president in 1868, and 3 because that means saying it’s not an insurrection to try and overthrow the government.

What I think they'll go with: the courts cannot decide the will of the people, essentially nullifying any possibility of any SC preventing any president from taking office, right up until the judicial branch is liquidated.

 

[eelw]

But if a willingness to withhold judgement is a real virtue like I believe it is, then surely good people everywhere will aspire to it. And if they are also satisfied they have satisfied their commitment to fairly judge others, then perhaps at that point other factors may play into their judgement.

Personally I believe that the real crime as far as Trump is concerned, is that he was ever able to run for President in the first place. He is mentally I’ll in a dangerous way. Let’s hope the SC puts him out of contention and out of our hair.

Oh come on, greenie still believes Jan 6 rioters were unarmed. He’s just being disingenuous in his defense of the orange monkey.